If you are new to the forums, you must register a free account before you can post. The forums have a separate registration from the rest of www.chronofhorse.com, so your log in information for one will not automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Sandro Hit Son "Soprano" Tops OHBS 2010 List of Premium Foal Sires

Out of over 100 stallions, Sandro Hit son Soprano, along with Sir Donnerhall and Shakespeare, produced the highest number of GOV Premium foals in North America 2010, as indicated in the Oldenburg Horse Breeders Society's 2011 Stallion Directory. Congratulations to Soprano on having produced 9 premium foals! This is a significant achievement in the USA...having already produced horses competing at the Swedish National Championship and the World Championship for Young Dressage Horses. This includes Grevens Sa Va who scored 86.2% and was named Best Mare at the 2010 World Championship for Young Dressage Horses in Verden, Germany.

That is great news! I have produced two foals by Soprano out of an Idocus and a Ferro mare respectively. The Soprano x Idocus filly is turning two and will be incorporated into my broodmare band. Her gaits are awesome and she has a very quick and powerful hindleg. The Soprano x Ferro filly, a real beauty, was sold to a young professional rider. I hope to see her in the show ring in a few years. Neither of these Soprano offspring has been inspected yet. They are both KWPN-NA registered (Reg. A).
Below are links to each:

My homebred Shakespeare RSF produced 9 premium foals, Soprano produced 9, Sir Donnerhall produced 9 and Starlight produced 7. Quite a good representation for Sandro Hit! We had 12 other premium foals, some by my other stallions Fhitzgerald and Welcome S. It was a good year!

The analyst in me wants to know - how does their percentage stack up against the other stallions? In other words, if those stallions have oodles more foals on the ground, odds are they're going to have numbers, in the absolute sense, that are higher.

But if they have a relatively small % of their hundreds of foals premium, then while the absolute number is bigger, the relative number is smaller.

Just curious as I am NOT implying they're just doing better out of sheer numbers

I happened to pick up the 2009 GOV directory and Sinatra Song had 17 premium foals in 2008. Sandro Hit blood again.

JB, I like to look at numbers too, but most NA registeries don't disclose the number of mares bred. I suspect this data is public information in Europe.

The ATA recently published a list of stallions who bred 10 or more mares. The KWPN NA used to publish data on mares bred, and resulting 1st, 2nd and 3rd premiums. I think the ISR publishes that info and if so, it should be on their web site.

The stalled economy has everything to do with the number of breedings.

The analyst in me wants to know - how does their percentage stack up against the other stallions? In other words, if those stallions have oodles more foals on the ground, odds are they're going to have numbers, in the absolute sense, that are higher.

But if they have a relatively small % of their hundreds of foals premium, then while the absolute number is bigger, the relative number is smaller.

Just curious as I am NOT implying they're just doing better out of sheer numbers

I can't speak on the percentages of premiums on the other stallions, but Shakesperare only had one foal last year that was not named premium by the GOV, and only one foal that didn't receive premium from the GOV in the previous year. He has one out of two foals presented to the American Hanoverian Society that were named the top foal at their inspection.

I can't speak on the percentages of premiums on the other stallions, but Shakesperare only had one foal last year that was not named premium by the GOV, and only one foal that didn't receive premium from the GOV in the previous year. He has one out of two foals presented to the American Hanoverian Society that were named the top foal at their inspection.

But how many foals did he have? 5? 20? That's my point

1/20 not receiving premium is more impressive than 1/5, but not as impressive as 1/50.

1/20 not receiving premium is more impressive than 1/5, but not as impressive as 1/50.

Kyzteke gets it

I have revealed all of the foals Shakespeare has had. Last year, he had 10 foals, 9 were premium. He was the Region 1 Champion at Second Level and won multiple third level tests with scores as high as 71%. The year before, he had 8 premium Oldenburg foals out of 9 presented, and one top foal out of 2 presented to the AHS. The autumn prior, he won the 70 day test in Oklahoma. He will be competing this year again. As his breeder and owner, I am trying to prove his quality by competing him and presenting his foals. As everyone knows, this is a daunting task that many stallion owners do not do. Shakespeare's oldest foals are 2 years old this year, and we are anxious to start them under saddle next year to see if his wonderful rideability has been passed on.

Please don't get me wrong - as I originally said, I'm not saying these aren't nice stallions. I'm sorry I didn't put 9 + 1 together from separate posts and recognize that must have meant he had 10 foals.

I'm just trying to get a better feel for the stallions listed in the OP and the relative success. 90% premium foals is awesome. When it's out of 50 foals though it's a lot more impressive than out of 10 foals. I know Shakespeare is young and doesn't have that many foals on the ground - does not at all mean he's not a nice boy, I quite like him a lot!

There is no offense meant here, at all. I'm just trying to get some perspective on what "the most" means, and it sadly appears there is no context provided unless you can manage to find out from the SOs themselves how many foals there were.

Not all NA WB registeries require foals being seen as foals or yearlings to get registration papers, the KWPN NA prominent among them.

The AHS gives site championships but does not give premiums to foals.

I've had premium foals who went on to do nothing in their amateur homes. I've had foals who were not presented who went on to show at Grand Prix at Spruce Meadows.

I like to have a premium ribbon or medallion but it is akin to getting distracted by a shiney object.

An inspection is one day in a foal's life.

I totally agree with you, but it's one of the only ways we have of tracking foal quality till mare inspection time.

If a stallion is approved through multiple registries, you would have to belong to all of them to get an idea of their overall quality.

And, while the odd foal may score Premium and turn out to be a dud OR score just average then turn out to be a winner, if you saw consistently high quality produced by a stallion o/o a variety of mares, wouldn't that impress you? It would me.

But again, it's hard to gather all this data in our system (or lack thereof).

Lastly, this falls under the "sad, but true" heading: if you are breeding for the market it's a "plus" to use a sire that produces fancy, high scoring foals. I sell almost all my stock as weanlings; people DO like to see those scores (if they are high). Seems like very few folks have enough confidence in their foal evaluation skills to make up their own mind.